> ... and btw
> they made or will make some ban against plasma here in Europe as far
> as I know - oh yes, here it goes:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/giant-plasma-tvs-face-ban-in-battle-to-green-britain-1299665.html

I assume that the banning and proscribing of various 'higher energy
consumptiom' devices is a first step towards targeting the more
intractable applications such as hot showers, water heating in general
and cooking. Once we get rid of these really profligate transformers
of energy we will be well on the way to saving the planet.

Based on the truly underwhelming result of trying to shower with a 6
kW instant heat hot water system I imagine that a real man's (or
Woman's) hot shower runs at 20 kW plus. For a decent entry level
shower of 20 minutes duration that's about once a day that's about 7
kWh or a 24 hour equivalent of almost 300 Watt. You could run a rather
large LCD monitor 24/7 on that, or have 300 of them on permanent
approved standby. It may take a while to charge your Tesla battery at
that rate.

A kitchen stove with oven and two elements probably runs at over 10
kW. Cook a roast and you are probably in for more energy than the real
person's [tm] shower.

Such energy hogs will obviously have to go!

The chairperson (title eludes me) for the IPCC has been quoted of late
as saying that ice in drinks should be a thing of the past and that
cutting down on meat consumption is a way to a lower energy lower
carbon cleaner greener future. (Maybe all those terms didn't get used
when meat and ice were talked about but they probably did).

With such visionaries to guide or, increasingly, compell us on our
way, It looks like our plasmaless, stoveless, showerless, meatless,
iceless futures are looking bright.


              Russell
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist